11 ms·

I think this question is misguided. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source. The burden should be on companies

I think this question is misguided. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source. The burden should be on companies that are creating an entirely new compound to prove that it is safe. See: talcum powder contamination taking decades to come to light even though it was a huge effect and a case of contamination instead of a new compound having some as-yet-unknown effect that we would then have to retroactively identify.

imgabe 7y ago
That's an impossible standard to meet though. If you're going to say "Prove that this new thing won't have any negative effects 50 years from now", that means it takes at least 50 years to release anything new. You might as well say "never make anything new". > It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source. Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them?
- repolfx 7y ago
  Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them? That's easy. It's for two reasons: 1. Trade barriers. The WTO mechanisms are full of holes. The so-called "precautionary principle" is just a justification to ensure that anything new the US invents can be instantly be made illegal in the EU until it can be "shown to be safe", i.e. the EU assumes everything to be dangerous by default until it decides otherwise. Actual science showing it's dangerous is not required. This is a great way to work around WTO rules on tariffs by abusing safety regulation and in particular protect French farming from genetically modified American imports. Americans aren't exactly dying en-masse from eating GM food (except maybe from obesity because food is so cheap), but pretending it's dangerous is a great way to block imports whilst avoiding a WTO dispute. 2. The EU regulatory apparatus is enormous. It has a staff of 32,000 people in the Commission alone, and many more in associated agencies. Many of these jobs are created for political reasons, for instance, countries are theoretically able to appoint one Commissioner each (in practice the head of the commission, Juncker, blocks any proposed appointment he doesn't like - this isn't meant to happen by treaty but does) and each Commissioner needs a staff. But more importantly, unlike in democratic governments, the Parliament does not create law. The Commission does that, and as a consequence the quantity of regulations the EU creates is staggering compared to any normal government. The throughput of regulations banning things is limited in democracies by the size of the chamber: there's only so much a group of a few hundred people can do after all. But there are so many regulations being churned out by the EU that the Parliament has rubber-stamp votes over 1000 times per week. You can see a video about the deleterious effects this rate of voting has here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4

imgabe 7y ago

That's an impossible standard to meet though. If you're going to say "Prove that this new thing won't have any negative effects 50 years from now", that means it takes at least 50 years to release anything new. You might as well say "never make anything new". > It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source. Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them?

repolfx 7y ago
Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them? That's easy. It's for two reasons: 1. Trade barriers. The WTO mechanisms are full of holes. The so-called "precautionary principle" is just a justification to ensure that anything new the US invents can be instantly be made illegal in the EU until it can be "shown to be safe", i.e. the EU assumes everything to be dangerous by default until it decides otherwise. Actual science showing it's dangerous is not required. This is a great way to work around WTO rules on tariffs by abusing safety regulation and in particular protect French farming from genetically modified American imports. Americans aren't exactly dying en-masse from eating GM food (except maybe from obesity because food is so cheap), but pretending it's dangerous is a great way to block imports whilst avoiding a WTO dispute. 2. The EU regulatory apparatus is enormous. It has a staff of 32,000 people in the Commission alone, and many more in associated agencies. Many of these jobs are created for political reasons, for instance, countries are theoretically able to appoint one Commissioner each (in practice the head of the commission, Juncker, blocks any proposed appointment he doesn't like - this isn't meant to happen by treaty but does) and each Commissioner needs a staff. But more importantly, unlike in democratic governments, the Parliament does not create law. The Commission does that, and as a consequence the quantity of regulations the EU creates is staggering compared to any normal government. The throughput of regulations banning things is limited in democracies by the size of the chamber: there's only so much a group of a few hundred people can do after all. But there are so many regulations being churned out by the EU that the Parliament has rubber-stamp votes over 1000 times per week. You can see a video about the deleterious effects this rate of voting has here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4